Only 11 nuclear bombs to 'take out' Canada

The Ottawa Citizen ^ | 7 January 2002 | David Pugliese

[RicocheT]

Computer simulation aims to raise questions about huge stockpiles of nuclear warheads.

A new computer program developed for nuclear weapons researchers in the U.S. probably won't give Canadians much of a sense of security in these days of global tension and uncertainty. The software simulated the destruction of Canada with as few as 11 nuclear warheads.

Read the rest of the article here: Click Here

[Question_Assumptions]

China, because of its large population, would have to be targeted by 368 nuclear weapons.

Hit their dams and those nice snow-covered mountains with some nukes and just wash them out to sea.

[Billthedrill]

So the Redcoats burned DC to the ground. So what? No big deal.

Yes, but they did some bad things too. I think.

Sure, they burned D.C. to the ground...but what have they done for us lately?

[chaosagent]

Blame Canada!

[Sawdring]

he fallout would only be severe for the first two weeks and hardly noticeable at the end of 14 weeks.

Are you saying there would be fallout for 14 weeks or the radiation left on the ground after the fallout wouldn't be enough to cause cancer, birth defects and other such maladies?

[Gorzaloon]

Having been to Montreal numerous times, as an Anglophone, I fear it is not going to cost me much sleep.

Since I live downwind, I would graciously accept the fallout in the name of good sportsmanship. My last act would be a feeling of warm satisfaction.

Treat ME that way, will they!? :-)

[StoneColdGOP]

One pipe bomb and Quebec will surrender unconditionally.

[Poohbah]

Actually, Quebec has FAR more spine than the French ever did.

[flamefront]

Think that might get them a bit more interested in NMD?

One would hope so. But the software and the report come from the Natural Resources Defense Council, a leftie disarmament think tank. From the article:

[NDRC's physicist after 2 years] Mr. McKinzie said he is working on modifying the software for eventual distribution to the public. The idea behind creating the computer program is to raise questions about the existing American policy of stockpiling thousands of nuclear weapons, he said. "Why do we need several thousand deployed nuclear weapons when even a few hundred would assure an overwhelming loss of life?" Mr. McKinzie asked.

Using the software, researchers estimated it would take 124 weapons to destroy the U.S. and 51 to eliminate Russia as a country. The computer program mimics the U.S. military's SIOP, or Single Integrated Operational Plan, which outlines the targeting of America's nuclear weapons and the likely consequences of each attack. SIOP is so secret that even members of the U.S. Senate, with high-level security clearance, are not allowed to know the details. The Natural Resources Defense Council scientists used declassified U.S. government information such as radioactive fallout projections, satellite photos, census data and maps of military installations to develop their software.

Ironically this very concern over vulnerability would make NMD much more valuable. Pres. Bush should thank them, and then also incentivize dispersal of industry and resources.

[backhoe]

FYI--

Nuclear News you *can* use--

[RightWhale]

if England had not been distracted by Continental misadventures, we probably would have lost our independence

The American Revolution was just one battle in a general war --World War Zero.

This is an assertion, open to debate: Without the distraction of the French, we would still be British subjects up until the end of WW One.

[CrossCheck]

Some reasons why Canada shouldn't be nuked:

1. The original 5 doesn't sound as good as the original 7

2. It might affect the walleye fishing

3. I like Sorel boots

4. The NHL needs a steady supply of "grinder" type role players (the skill players come from Europe)

5. Don Cherry

6. Our border states depend on the refugees from Canada's medical system

7. I'm thinking, I'm thinking

[RightWhale]

One pipe bomb and Quebec will surrender unconditionally.

These are feisty old French like the Cajun, not the modern socialist French. The Quebecois will not give up easily.

[archy]

Wind speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: due east
Time frame: 7 days

Key

3,000 Rem*

Distance: 30 miles
Much more than a lethal dose of radiation. Death can occur within hours of exposure. About ten years will need to pass before levels of radioactivity in this area drop low enough to be considered safe, by U.S. peacetime standards.

900 Rem
Distance: 90 miles
A lethal dose of radiation. Death occurs from two to fourteen days.

300 Rem
Distance: 160 miles
Causes extensive internal damage, including harm to nerve cells and the cells that line the digestive tract. Also results in a loss of white blood cells and temporary hair loss.

90 Rem
Distance: 250 miles
No immediate harmful effects, but does result in a temporary decrease in white blood cells. Two to three years will need to pass before radioactivity levels in this area drop low enough to be considered safe, by U.S. peacetime standards.

*Rem: Stands for "roentgen equivalent man." It is a measurement used to quantify the amount of radiation that will produce certain biological effects.

NOTE: This information is drawn mainly from "The Effects of Nuclear War" (Washington: Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, 1979). The zones of destruction mapped out on this page are broad generalizations and do not take into account factors such as weather and geography.

[Great Dane]

Where's Canada?

That sir/maam is on a need to know basis.

[Poohbah]

A very LATE battle, IMNHO--like after the war was over. The American phase of the Seven Years' War was known as the French and Indian War; the war ended in the 1760s, IIRC.

[BubbaJunebug]

Only 11?....wow that still leaves us with 6000 to use on Mexico, Ma-RI-CT-NH-VT and California....I say lets leave New York to the New Yorkers!

[Billthedrill]

We've been down this road before with these shifty North-enders...they're still PO'ed about the pig.

The Pig War of 1859

It was George Pickett's greatest moment. Well, this one and that thing at Gettysburg...

[Straight Vermonter]

"Why do we need several thousand deployed nuclear weapons when even a few hundred would assure an overwhelming loss of life?"

This guy is a moron. Imagine if we stocked just a couple of hundred warheads. A determined conventional attack, terrorist attack or sea launched first strike could take out our ability to respond in force to a nuclear strike from an enemy. That is why arms reduction is inherently MORE dangerous than the situation we had during the cold war. That is the reason for overkill.

One would think that the people creating this software would at least understand the basics of MAD. Actually, he probably understands it quite well but it doesn't agree with political bent so he ignores it.

[RadioAstronomer]

Remenber your rules of 7 when caclulating fallout. First 7 hours is the worst, then 2 days later 1/10^th, two weeks after that, 1/10^th and 14 weeks later, again 1/10^th. So after 14 weeks a 6000 r/hr is only 6 r/hr. And these levels would only be near G-zero.

[shaggy eel]

,,, but wait, there's more - buy ten warheads and get one free! (Offer valid at participating outlets while stocks last.)